Israel

[Brian Fantana 6667]

7 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Bullshit

He said, and I quote

5 Arab nations attacked Israel the moment it was created.  So he either believes the creation of Israel is invalid because it displaced Palestinians, or he is wrong.  I gave him an out yet he confirmed the former in his next post. 

That comment is in the context of the contemporary world, not the world of 75 years ago. Again, bad faith.

If Israel, today (ideally much earlier, before this terror attack took place), stopped slaughtering people and taking their homes in the West Bank, and if Gaza stopped being an open air prison, they absolutely would have close to no pushback from the world at large.

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

I hate to be disagreeable*, but while all of this is certainly true, Jordan can do a shit load more to help the Palestinians in the WB. And Egypt and Lebanon and others as well.

 

*syke

No disagreements.  I'm just saying there might be a reason Palestinians view them quite a bit more favorably than Israel.

e: view not few

Edited October 19, 2023 by Brian Fantana

[chainsaw 9837]

3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

5 Arab nations attacked Israel the moment it was created.  So he either believes the creation of Israel is invalid because it displaced Palestinians, or he is wrong.  I gave him an out yet he confirmed the former in his next post. 

Did you learn about all this from PragerU? You're conveniently omitting the Nakba and other key factors.

[Tonesky 917]

3 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Jordan didn't slaughter a bunch of them, raze their cities and villages, and displace hundreds of thousands of them would be my first guess. Like half their population has Palestinian roots.

They are second class non-citizens, and overwhelmingly believe Jordan is stolen land.  the Kingdom persists through military/police power, funded by the USA.  Yet, they are ignored in the Palestinian rights debate.  The response that Israel is a greater oppressor is weak sauce.   

[DixonHur 11171]

1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

That comment is in the context of the contemporary world, not the world of 75 years ago. Again, bad faith.

If Israel, today (ideally much earlier, before this terror attack took place), stopped slaughtering people and taking their homes in the West Bank, and if Gaza stopped being an open air prison, they absolutely would have close to no pushback from the world at large.

Not bad faith at all...he used the fucking word EVER.   That kinda takes the statutes of limitations argument out of the equation.

And again, history continues to prove the bolded part wrong.  The Arab world at large falls into the "creation of Israel was illegal" camp.

[Anastasis 23393]

Just now, DixonHur said:

The Arab world at large falls into the "creation of Israel was illegal" camp.

Israel has been engaged in an illegal occupation for decades. But see, international rules based order or some such. And some people wonder why nobody takes our shit seriously. 

[troph 24562]

11 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I think you pretty much have to believe that Judeo-Christian mythology is fact in order to argue that the Jews have a right to the land of Palestine as their ancestral home. That land hadn’t been majority Jewish in well over a thousand years. I think it’s reasonable to say that after you haven’t been living somewhere for more than a thousand years, you’ve given up the right to call it your land. If you try to take it back, you shouldn’t be surprised if the people who’ve been calling it their home for centuries don’t take too kindly to being replaced by outsiders, especially when deception is used as a tactic to accomplish that end. Say whatever you want but those people got screwed and have every right to be pissed. There will never be a two state solution because Israel will never offer the Palestinians a fair deal. So there will never be peace.

I’m not fucking arguing it, I said they claim it. Do you read my posts on this  thread or do you just want to fucking argue? 

and most of the Arab world bases their view of Israel and the Jews in particular through the lens of their religious text.  What about rhat? 

What I think is complete horseshit is when folks quote me and don’t read carefully or don’t read the rest of my posts. 

I never said the Palestinians weren’t screwed or didn’t have claims to the land. 

you aren’t the only one do to it but I’m tired of the fucking hyenas so you’re going to be the last.

so kindly fuck off. I’m out. 

[DixonHur 11171]

5 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Did you learn about all this from PragerU? You're conveniently omitting the Nakba and other key factors.

Um, how else do you create a Jewish nation on Arab land?

Listen, I'm also in the "creation of Israel was the 2nd or 3rd worst mistake in the 20th century" club. 

But it does exist and has for a long time, so it's time the Arab world got used to it and move on.

[956 Worldwide 34422]

2 hours ago, Jatrain said:

If Hamas was gone tomorrow, what would Gaza look like?

Hard to tell depending who took over, but hopefully there’d be fewer Palestinians killed at hospitals by Palestinian rockets. 
 

One thing that’s wild about this hospital thing is that the rocket was designed and launched with the express purpose of killing civilians but people got really upset only after it killed the WRONG civilians. 

[Brian Fantana 6667]

20 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Hard to tell depending who took over, but hopefully there’d be fewer Palestinians killed at hospitals by Palestinian rockets. 
 

One thing that’s wild about this hospital thing is that the rocket was designed and launched with the express purpose of killing civilians but people got really upset only after it killed the WRONG civilians. 

The implication being that everyone wanted the Israeli civilians to die, because anti-semitism or something. Like you've claimed over, and over, and over, and over in this thread. And apologized for multiple times. And yet you're still doing it, just trying to mask it harder or something.

Of course, if you thought Palestinians were humans, you'd actually give a shit about all of them Israel has objectively murdered over the years, but alas...

[Brian Fantana 6667]

33 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Um, how else do you create a Jewish nation on Arab land?

Listen, I'm also in the "creation of Israel was the 2nd or 3rd worst mistake in the 20th century" club. 

But it does exist and has for a long time, so it's time the Arab world got used to it and move on.

Yeah I mean, I guess it would be easier to just let them kill the rest of the Palestinians in the West Bank so we could be done with it and you didn't have to read mean things on the internet about the settler terrorism going on there.

[Jatrain 288]

22 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Hard to tell depending who took over, but hopefully there’d be fewer Palestinians killed at hospitals by Palestinian rockets. 
 

One thing that’s wild about this hospital thing is that the rocket was designed and launched with the express purpose of killing civilians but people got really upset only after it killed the WRONG civilians. 

Actually, we have an example:  the West Bank.  No Hamas in control there, just the Palestinian Authority, which denounces terrorism and recognizes the right of Israel to exist.  
 

How does Israel treat the Palestinians under their control there?

[Nivek 16853]

9 hours ago, chainsaw said:

If "exist" means displacing people from their ancestral homes, or committing genocide, then no, there is no right to do that.

Um.... are you an American (North, Central, or South included)... cause um.....

[956 Worldwide 34422]

8 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

The implication being that everyone wanted the Israeli civilians to die, because anti-semitism or something. Like you've claimed over, and over, and over, and over in this thread. And apologized for multiple times. And yet you're still doing it, just trying to mask it harder or something.

Of course, if you thought Palestinians were humans, you'd actually give a shit about all of them Israel has objectively murdered over the years, but alas...

The implication being that the rocket did exactly what it was designed and launched to do (kill civilians), just not the ones they wanted.  And that blatant and repeated— hundreds of times a day— attempts to do war crimes gets a shrug until the war crime is against themselves.  Because decolonizing or some shit. 

 

[bernorange 8348]

14 hours ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

Not sure if you’re aware but Basically every country in the region has a level 3 or level 4 travel alert from the US state department all saying the same thing for traveling Americans : US has little control and can’t save you, draft a will, beware of terrorism, kidnapping, death.

Circa 2010 I happened to be in Saudi Arabia doing some project management consulting work for a refinery just as the Arab Spring started blooming.  Tanks were rolling about 30 minutes down the highway to the bridge to Bahrain and everyone was on edge.  I was on the road at 4am every morning to get to the refinery and the road had police checkpoints that were always an adventure to go through (always different people working them - some rather bigoted against Americans).  One morning, at 4am, I'm the only soul around at the checkpoint and one of the policemen there started rambling at me in Arabic (of which I understood absolutely nothing).  I gave him a blank stare and he came around to the passenger side of the car, opened the door and got in the car,  He motioned for me to start driving.  I started driving and the dude just kind of relaxes in the passenger seat perking up occasionally to direct me when to turn left or right.  I had no fucking idea what the fuck was happening.  Eventually we get to another police checkpoint and he gets out of the car and thanks me for the ride and waves me off to head back.  Motherfucker!

[statsman 5421]

8 hours ago, Jatrain said:

Actually, we have an example:  the West Bank.  No Hamas in control there, just the Palestinian Authority, which denounces terrorism and recognizes the right of Israel to exist.  
 

How does Israel treat the Palestinians under their control there?

I heard a podcast recently where the speaker noted that Abbas hasn’t had an election in 18 years, and that’s a good thing, because Hamas would win if they did. Is that not right?

Jews are a liberal people, but a Jewish state is a very illiberal idea, so there is a structural instability (Muslim populations tend to be illiberal, so Muslim states don’t have the same tension). 
  
The issue is: two states vs one state. The world has brokered two-state solutions, Israel has agreed to two-state solutions, and the Palestinians have consistently rejected two-state solutions. 
 
If you view it as a single state, the Palestinians are an ejected and oppressed people that are victims until allowed free unfettered access to all of Israel. This would be the end of the Jewish state of Israel, and the beginning of the Muslim state of Palestine. 
 
If you view the area as two states- Israel is not responsible for Palestinians outside the Israel border. The Palestinians need to govern and care for themselves, and final borders are negotiable. 
 
Until both sides agree on the one-state vs two-state issue, there can be no resolution. By withdrawing from Gaza almost 20 years ago, Israel tried to force acceptance of the two-state idea but the Palestinians refuse to accept it. 

[ConferenceRoom 6127]

6 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Circa 2010 I happened to be in Saudi Arabia doing some project management consulting work for a refinery just as the Arab Spring started blooming.  Tanks were rolling about 30 minutes down the highway to the bridge to Bahrain and everyone was on edge.  I was on the road at 4am every morning to get to the refinery and the road had police checkpoints that were always an adventure to go through (always different people working them - some rather bigoted against Americans).  One morning, at 4am, I'm the only soul around at the checkpoint and one of the policemen there started rambling at me in Arabic (of which I understood absolutely nothing).  I gave him a blank stare and he came around to the passenger side of the car, opened the door and got in the car,  He motioned for me to start driving.  I started driving and the dude just kind of relaxes in the passenger seat perking up occasionally to direct me when to turn left or right.  I had no fucking idea what the fuck was happening.  Eventually we get to another police checkpoint and he gets out of the car and thanks me for the ride and waves me off to head back.  Motherfucker!

Power move. 

[Brian Fantana 6667]

12 minutes ago, bernorange said:

Circa 2010 I happened to be in Saudi Arabia doing some project management consulting work for a refinery just as the Arab Spring started blooming.  Tanks were rolling about 30 minutes down the highway to the bridge to Bahrain and everyone was on edge.  I was on the road at 4am every morning to get to the refinery and the road had police checkpoints that were always an adventure to go through (always different people working them - some rather bigoted against Americans).  One morning, at 4am, I'm the only soul around at the checkpoint and one of the policemen there started rambling at me in Arabic (of which I understood absolutely nothing).  I gave him a blank stare and he came around to the passenger side of the car, opened the door and got in the car,  He motioned for me to start driving.  I started driving and the dude just kind of relaxes in the passenger seat perking up occasionally to direct me when to turn left or right.  I had no fucking idea what the fuck was happening.  Eventually we get to another police checkpoint and he gets out of the car and thanks me for the ride and waves me off to head back.  Motherfucker!

[Tonesky 917]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

Um.... are you an American (North, Central, or South included)... cause um.....

But, the Trail of Tears ended about 175 years ago.  Don't you know that there is a daily rolling statute of limitations, that is always just long enough to include Israel?

Edited October 19, 2023 by Tonesky

[David Dennison 18652]

10 hours ago, DixonHur said:

Um, how else do you create a Jewish nation on Arab land?

Listen, I'm also in the "creation of Israel was the 2nd or 3rd worst mistake in the 20th century" club. 

But it does exist and has for a long time, so it's time the Arab world got used to it and move on.

Israel doesn't seem to be too keen on moving on, either. See: West Bank settlements.

[Brisketexan 104560]

14 hours ago, Tonesky said:

Just drove past the Consulate General of Israel in Houston, where hundreds are gathering in protest.  The chant: "We don't want two states; we want '48."  Not hard to interpret that Palestinians (not just Hamas, et al) believe Israel is illegitimate and that there should be a single Palestinian state from the river to the sea.....  But, I am sure that is a new belief, forced upon them by years of Israeli oppression.

 

14 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

You mean like there used to be, before it was forcibly taken from them? I can't imagine why they'd hold such a belief, you fucking dumbass.

 

14 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

Of course, but that doesn't mean it wasn't an awful thing to do and that Palestinians don't have a right to be angry about a forced, mass displacement from their lands. It's absolutely unreal the amount of arm twisting you have to do to get anyone in the Western world to admit that.

Just upthread, a few posts ago we have some goo-brained moron incredulous about them simply wanting back what was taken from them. The AUDACITY.

 

11 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

it always leads back to “but it’s our land despite all those wars we lost”

 

Bingo.  You start walking down the road with them, and this is where it always ends up.  See each instance of bolded text above (and the one below).  It always comes back to "Israel out of the levant."  And people wonder why it's hard to get Israel to negotiate in good faith?

11 hours ago, chainsaw said:

amazing what happens when you aren't occupying someone else's territory.

 

10 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

That comment is in the context of the contemporary world, not the world of 75 years ago. Again, bad faith.

If Israel, today (ideally much earlier, before this terror attack took place), stopped slaughtering people and taking their homes in the West Bank, and if Gaza stopped being an open air prison, they absolutely would have close to no pushback from the world at large.

No disagreements.  I'm just saying there might be a reason Palestinians view them quite a bit more favorably than Israel.

e: view not few

So, just ignore the 75 years of history where the Palestinians and their allies have pledged consistently, and have conducted full-scale war repeatedly, to push Israel completely off the map.  Israel wasn't pushing settlers into the West Bank and sealing off Gaza BEFORE the Palestinians launched a war of conquest and state-extermination against them.  I love the "hey, if we just omit decades of evidence that they want Israel to cease existence, peace is at hand!"

10 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Israel has been engaged in an illegal occupation for decades. But see, international rules based order or some such. And some people wonder why nobody takes our shit seriously. 

An illegal occupation of what?  Gaza and the West Bank?  I understand that my be what YOU are referencing, and that approach provides room for a path forward.  But understand that when the people I quoted in bold say things like that, they mean "an illegal occupation of the Levant, which Israel took from the Palestinian people."  

I support a two-state solution. I support a continuing existence of the state of Israel.  I support an end to Israeli occupation and repression of Gaza and the West Bank.  I support an end to any Israeli settlements in same, as those territories should be the baseline for the future Palestinian state.  But my question is this: do any of you actually think that will work?  Do you think it more likely that A) the Palestinian state is created, and the Palestinian people finally have an internationally recognized homeland supported by a treaty, and go about living their lives as a people who now have a state, or B) the Palestinian state is created, and that state is used as a building ground and launching pad for the ultimate goal, which has not changed and will never change: push Israel into the sea and end the Israeli state?  You have to bet on one.  Which one do you bet on?

I sure as hell don't like that fact that the very thing that I support -- an independent and peaceful Palestinian state, free of Israeli interference, control, and violence -- is practically impossible.  But I can't look at the chess board and see it playing out any other way.  Because the end-game always ends up at the same place: Israel must be gone.

[Nivek 16853]

Seems to me the biggest problem are the militant wings within the Palestinians and the lack of policing of those people by the Palestinians.   They caused issues for Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and everyone else they aligned or dealt with (except Iran).  They murdered a Jordanian leader, conspired to overthrow the King.   The coordinated with Syria in order to attack Jordan.    Lebanon became a shithole after the Palestinian militants arrived, and the Lebanese army was too weak to kick them out, which led to a civil war and multiple foreign powers getting involved (when has Iran actually been a good partner? Will they ever learn?).  Even when a path to statehood was brokered, the militants within the Palestinian community ramped up attacks to thwart the brokered agreement and the leadership showed no compunction or ability to stop it.

Seems to me the Palestinians haven't suffered enough to want peace, they are happy sow discord and happy to live in squalor and cry victim (of the Jordanians, Lebanese, Egyptians, Israelis, etc.).  Until they get their own house in order this cycle will continue.   It doesn't matter which country they have dealings with, the outcome is the same.  

Edited October 19, 2023 by Nivek

[Brian Fantana 6667]

29 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

 

 

Bingo.  You start walking down the road with them, and this is where it always ends up.  See each instance of bolded text above (and the one below).  It always comes back to "Israel out of the levant."  And people wonder why it's hard to get Israel to negotiate in good faith?

 

So, just ignore the 75 years of history where the Palestinians and their allies have pledged consistently, and have conducted full-scale war repeatedly, to push Israel completely off the map.  Israel wasn't pushing settlers into the West Bank and sealing off Gaza BEFORE the Palestinians launched a war of conquest and state-extermination against them.  I love the "hey, if we just omit decades of evidence that they want Israel to cease existence, peace is at hand!"

An illegal occupation of what?  Gaza and the West Bank?  I understand that my be what YOU are referencing, and that approach provides room for a path forward.  But understand that when the people I quoted in bold say things like that, they mean "an illegal occupation of the Levant, which Israel took from the Palestinian people."  

I support a two-state solution. I support a continuing existence of the state of Israel.  I support an end to Israeli occupation and repression of Gaza and the West Bank.  I support an end to any Israeli settlements in same, as those territories should be the baseline for the future Palestinian state.  But my question is this: do any of you actually think that will work?  Do you think it more likely that A) the Palestinian state is created, and the Palestinian people finally have an internationally recognized homeland supported by a treaty, and go about living their lives as a people who now have a state, or B) the Palestinian state is created, and that state is used as a building ground and launching pad for the ultimate goal, which has not changed and will never change: push Israel into the sea and end the Israeli state?  You have to bet on one.  Which one do you bet on?

I sure as hell don't like that fact that the very thing that I support -- an independent and peaceful Palestinian state, free of Israeli interference, control, and violence -- is practically impossible.  But I can't look at the chess board and see it playing out any other way.  Because the end-game always ends up at the same place: Israel must be gone.

FWIW, I would love a peacefully co-existing two-state solution, so we definitely agree there that it would be ideal for the harmony of the region and the safety of both Israelis and Palestinians.

And no, of course we shouldn't ignore the history here. That's kind of the point. But you know that and are aware just how bloody both sides hands are.

[Brian Fantana 6667]

14 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Seems to me the biggest problem are the militant wings within the Palestinians and the lack of policing of those people by the Palestinians.   They caused issues for Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and everyone else they aligned or dealt with (except Iran).  They murdered a Jordanian leader, conspired to overthrow the King.   The coordinated with Syria in order to attack Jordan.    Lebanon became a shithole after the Palestinian militants arrived, and the Lebanese army was too weak to kick them out, which led to a civil war and multiple foreign powers getting involved (when has Iran actually been a good partner? Will they ever learn?).  Even when a path to statehood was brokered, the militants within the Palestinian community ramped up attacks to thwart the brokered agreement and the leadership showed no compunction or ability to stop it.

Seems to me the Palestinians haven't suffered enough to want peace, they are happy sow discord and happy to live in squalor and cry victim (of the Jordanians, Lebanese, Egyptians, Israelis, etc.).  Until they get their own house in order this cycle will continue.   It doesn't matter which country they have dealings with, the outcome is the same.  

Specifically within Gaza/West Bank they really have no capacity to do that. There is no established state with the power to solve these issues. They haven't been allowed elections in quite a while.

[chainsaw 9837]

2 hours ago, Nivek said:

Um.... are you an American (North, Central, or South included)... cause um.....

I'm a proponent of paying substantial reparations to the descendants of slaveholders and displaced indigenous people. As for returning land, I am in favor of it where it is feasible. I haven't looked too closely at the feasibility of returning land to indigenous people, but my understanding is that the feasibility can vary depending on what land we're talking about and other factors. Where returning particular lands to particular people is not feasible, I am in favor of granting different land to them of comparable quality and paying monetary compensation to them to account for the shortcoming.

To me, that is the only morally defensible answer.

[jimmyjazz 45546]

Clearly, the problem is Jews showing up in 1948 and wanting land.

[G650 14086]

10 hours ago, Jatrain said:

Actually, we have an example:  the West Bank.  No Hamas in control there, just the Palestinian Authority, which denounces terrorism and recognizes the right of Israel to exist.  
 

How does Israel treat the Palestinians under their control there?

[Brian Fantana 6667]

3 hours ago, Nivek said:

Um.... are you an American (North, Central, or South included)... cause um.....

Also, yeah, we did it too. It was bad. I'm not sure what your point is, it doesn't make any of it right or just.

P.S.: The contemporary American/Native American equivalent to Israeli/Palestinian relations would be if we forced most of the NAs to stay on the reservations, denied them citizenship, terrorized them by continuously killing them and reclaiming plots of land on the reservations. Then, we would also deny the 20% of them we allowed to be citizens and live among us equal rights and protections under our laws and live under forced effective segregation.

When I type that out it sounds like a slightly more extreme version of how we have treated black people in post-slavery America.

 

[Brisketexan 104560]

12 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Also, yeah, we did it too. It was bad. I'm not sure what your point is, it doesn't make any of it right or just.

P.S.: The contemporary American/Native American equivalent to Israeli/Palestinian relations would be if we forced most of the NAs to stay on the reservations, denied them citizenship, terrorized them by continuously killing them and reclaiming plots of land on the reservations. Then, we would also deny the 20% of them we allowed to be citizens and live among us equal rights and protections under our laws and live under forced effective segregation.

And also, the contemporary Native Americans would have the position that all non-native Americans must leave any and all lands that were occupied, either actively or via historical claim, by Native Americans pre-1492.

The bolded addition is really, really important.  It doesn't negate any of what you posted in your first paragraph as a "what if" scenario.  It just completes the picture.  Because let's say we were doing all of those things in the first paragraph, and then we immediately got right with the lord and stopped that shit.  It would still leave the bolded part hanging out there, which makes it an intractable problem.  Your scenario would see that the only solution would be for all people without Native American blood to leave the Americas completely (there wasn't a piece of dirt in the Americas that wasn't the territory of some tribe or another over the years).  Which is never going to happen.

1.  The Palestinians must allow the state of Israel, in some physical form, to exist and to be a safe place for Jews so that they don't have to fear the slaughter they have faced repeatedly for 2000 years.

2.  The state of Israel must leave the levant entirely because it is an illegal occupier ("Back to 48!").

 

If you can reconcile positions 1 and 2 in a way that doesn't lead to perpetual war, and isn't resolved by genocide/elimination of one side or the other, get your ass to the UN immediately and make your pitch.  Because me?  I've got nothin'.

[Nivek 16853]

2 hours ago, Tonesky said:

But, the Trail of Tears ended about 175 years ago.  Don't you know that there is a daily rolling statute of limitations, that is always just long enough to include Israel?

You thinks they suffered then, this is how they were memorialized...

Quote

 

 

[Brian Fantana 6667]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

The bolded addition is really, really important.  It doesn't negate any of what you posted in your first paragraph as a "what if" scenario.  It just completes the picture.  Because let's say we were doing all of those things in the first paragraph, and then we immediately got right with the lord and stopped that shit.  It would still leave the bolded part hanging out there, which makes it an intractable problem.  Your scenario would see that the only solution would be for all people without Native American blood to leave the Americas completely (there wasn't a piece of dirt in the Americas that wasn't the territory of some tribe or another over the years).  Which is never going to happen.

1.  The Palestinians must allow the state of Israel, in some physical form, to exist and to be a safe place for Jews so that they don't have to fear the slaughter they have faced repeatedly for 2000 years.

2.  The state of Israel must leave the levant entirely because it is an illegal occupier ("Back to 48!").

 

If you can reconcile positions 1 and 2 in a way that doesn't lead to perpetual war, and isn't resolved by genocide/elimination of one side or the other, get your ass to the UN immediately and make your pitch.  Because me?  I've got nothin'.

Oh I don't disagree. I don't think there would be a problem with them holding that opinion, either, even if it was an unrealistic ask.

I got nothin', either. It sucks.

[956 Worldwide 34422]

It is fair to criticize the Israelis for being obstructionist dicks in implementing a two-state solution, that’s true. And it’s also true that there’s a tension as long as one side wants two states and one side will only settle for one.

 

But the piece missing in all this is the existence of highly motivated outside actors who benefit mightily from an ongoing conflict where they can moderate the gas. More than “benefit,” there are capable and wealthy actors whose internal and external legitimacy depends on defending the oppressed Palestinians and who would have real problems if the Palestinians are no longer being oppressed.

Iran being the obvious answer but no one should be shocked that the most strident “one staters” live in Qatar and that the “one state” terrorist party pays its bills with Gulf money.

This reveals both the limits of Israeli political maneuvering and U.S. power, the continued existence of an Israel-Palestine conflict is a core interest for these states.  Again, this is from the Russian playbook. 

There will never be a unified Palestinian authority to negotiate a two state solution with until Iran, Qatar, and others tell the people on their payroll “you are never getting one state and you’re falling off the payroll if you don’t get in line with this new direction.”

Which is basically, “never.” 

[Brisketexan 104560]

1 minute ago, 956 Worldwide said:

But the piece missing in all this is the existence of highly motivated outside actors who benefit mightily from an ongoing conflict where they can moderate the gas. More than “benefit,” there are capable and wealthy actors whose internal and external legitimacy depends on defending the oppressed Palestinians and who would have real problems if the Palestinians are no longer being oppressed.

QFMFT.

I made that point in one of my first posts when this round of shit all blew up.  The Palestinians have allowed themselves to be useful idiots -- doing all the suffering, fighting, and dying -- so that despotic shit states can use them to rally their own people against an outer foe, instead of looking at their own regime.

As long as there are outside states who will focus tremendous energy on keeping a material percentage of Palestinians in a state of forever war against Israel and all jews....the prospects for peace are zero.  Because again, even if Israel suddenly decided to do everything right, stop shitting on the territories, agreed to a two-state solution, etc.....the arab and iranian regimes would still be arming Palestinian groups telling them to keep waging jihad, because you gotta wag that dog.

[chainsaw 9837]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

allowed themselves

That's some interesting framing here. They have not had any semblance of self determination in decades. Israel, and along with it the US and its allies, have had thumbs on the scale for as long as anyone alive has lived.

[Brisketexan 104560]

3 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

They have not had any semblance of self determination in decades.

Every Palestinian terrorist who blew up a bus, participated in the October 7th attacks, etc., had plenty of "self determination."  They chose to do that.  The October 7th attack wasn't a lone wolf.  It was hundreds of fighters, backed by thousands.  Each of them had "self determination."

Denying that any Palestinians have had agency isn't a good look.  And that approach, if at all true, makes negotiation pointless.  Why negotiate with people who don't have any agency? 

And on top of that, how in the blue hell are the US, Israel, and their allies "parties with thumbs on the scale".....but Syria, Qatar, and Iran (as immediate examples) are not/have not been?

[Huckleberry 32694]

27 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The bolded addition is really, really important.  It doesn't negate any of what you posted in your first paragraph as a "what if" scenario.  It just completes the picture.  Because let's say we were doing all of those things in the first paragraph, and then we immediately got right with the lord and stopped that shit.  It would still leave the bolded part hanging out there, which makes it an intractable problem.  Your scenario would see that the only solution would be for all people without Native American blood to leave the Americas completely (there wasn't a piece of dirt in the Americas that wasn't the territory of some tribe or another over the years).  Which is never going to happen.

1.  The Palestinians must allow the state of Israel, in some physical form, to exist and to be a safe place for Jews so that they don't have to fear the slaughter they have faced repeatedly for 2000 years.

2.  The state of Israel must leave the levant entirely because it is an illegal occupier ("Back to 48!").

 

If you can reconcile positions 1 and 2 in a way that doesn't lead to perpetual war, and isn't resolved by genocide/elimination of one side or the other, get your ass to the UN immediately and make your pitch.  Because me?  I've got nothin'.

I'm glad you see the parallel though. Simple question: was the massacre of Native American people and imperial elimination of Native American sovereignty just or disgusting? We all know it was disgusting, but because it happened a long time ago oh well I guess. And the parallels don't stop there. 

Nobody on this forum gets emotional about Native American raids that massacred white invaders' whole families. In fact we understand why they did it and recognize that on the whole the white Europeans and Americans were the ones who bore more responsibility for the overall conflict. Do we support the method? Not really. But that shit happens when you're engaged in the destruction of their families. This isn't even controversial at this point. It didn't work out (like it won't work for Hamas) but it was understandable.

But because it's happening contemporaneously lots of emotions are blinding people right now. We're all basically watching it happen again and the sides people are taking are interesting. 

['stache 21764]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Clearly, the problem is Jews showing up in 1948 and wanting land.

Or more accurately, Britain and the allies forcing it upon Palestine without the consent of the Palestinians. 

[Nivek 16853]

 

48 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Specifically within Gaza/West Bank they really have no capacity to do that. There is no established state with the power to solve these issues. They haven't been allowed elections in quite a while.

Um,  Why not?  I am sure someone can fashion a pointy stick if they cannot acquire a boom stick and get like minded individuals to start policing them.   I read about a school that had continued trouble with fights and what not, until a bunch of dads decided to band together and become hall monitors.   They didn't have the 'authority' granted by the state either.  Too many people stand around looking for someone else to take action.   Arrest, kill, or deport them, hand them over to the Israelis or Egyptians if they don't want to get their hands too dirty.  

Here is an example.

[David Dennison 18652]

23 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

QFMFT.

I made that point in one of my first posts when this round of shit all blew up.  The Palestinians have allowed themselves to be useful idiots -- doing all the suffering, fighting, and dying -- so that despotic shit states can use them to rally their own people against an outer foe, instead of looking at their own regime.

As long as there are outside states who will focus tremendous energy on keeping a material percentage of Palestinians in a state of forever war against Israel and all jews....the prospects for peace are zero.  Because again, even if Israel suddenly decided to do everything right, stop shitting on the territories, agreed to a two-state solution, etc.....the arab and iranian regimes would still be arming Palestinian groups telling them to keep waging jihad, because you gotta wag that dog.

A cynical observer might notice similar traits in the relationship between the United States and Israel.

Edited October 19, 2023 by David Dennison

[G650 14086]

29 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

It is fair to criticize the Israelis for being obstructionist dicks in implementing a two-state solution, that’s true. And it’s also true that there’s a tension as long as one side wants two states and one side will only settle for one.

 

But the piece missing in all this is the existence of highly motivated outside actors who benefit mightily from an ongoing conflict where they can moderate the gas. More than “benefit,” there are capable and wealthy actors whose internal and external legitimacy depends on defending the oppressed Palestinians and who would have real problems if the Palestinians are no longer being oppressed.

Iran being the obvious answer but no one should be shocked that the most strident “one staters” live in Qatar and that the “one state” terrorist party pays its bills with Gulf money.

This reveals both the limits of Israeli political maneuvering and U.S. power, the continued existence of an Israel-Palestine conflict is a core interest for these states.  Again, this is from the Russian playbook. 

There will never be a unified Palestinian authority to negotiate a two state solution with until Iran, Qatar, and others tell the people on their payroll “you are never getting one state and you’re falling off the payroll if you don’t get in line with this new direction.”

Which is basically, “never.” 

 Agreed

[Brisketexan 104560]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

I'm glad you see the parallel though. Simple question: was the massacre of Native American people and imperial elimination of Native American sovereignty just or disgusting? We all know it was disgusting, but because it happened a long time ago oh well I guess. And the parallels don't stop there. 

Nobody on this forum gets emotional about Native American raids that massacred white invaders' whole families. In fact we understand why they did it and recognize that on the whole the white Europeans and Americans were the ones who bore more responsibility for the overall conflict. Do we support the method? Not really. But that shit happens when you're engaged in the destruction of their families. This isn't even controversial at this point. It didn't work out (like it won't work for Hamas) but it was understandable.

But because it's happening contemporaneously lots of emotions are blinding people right now. We're all basically watching it happen again and the sides people are taking are interesting. 

The only path forward -- dictated by reality -- is to play the ball as it lies TODAY.  To switch metaphors, we show up and play the chess match with the pieces arranged as they are at present, not as we belief the were positioned/should have been justly positioned before.  To grab a third metaphor....you can't unscramble the egg.

To go back to the native american situation, we start from where we are today.  I believe the US state has obligations to the native american population (both acknowledged obligations that we haven't performed, and additional obligations that we should perform).  But I also believe that there cannot and will not be a wholesale "return of previously held lands" to native americans.  You and I aren't going to sign over the deeds to our residential lots to the Comanche.  So, from where things stand today, how do we move forward in a more just way?

Israel and the Palestinian people should forge a path forward that is as good as can be reasonably achieved based on how things actually exist today.  The FIRST step, for both of them, is "stop committing brutal crimes against the other side."  Israel should stop settlements, violence to further settlements, violent oppression of Palestinians in the territories, and the like.  The Palestinians should cease attacks against Israel and jews.  By the way, that's what a "cease-fire" means.  I see plenty of people cry out for that, but it seems that they're only talking about Israel ceasing ITS military activity....those Hamas missiles can keep flying.  

Quit with the fuckery.  Both of you.  The first step is to stop further fuckery.  Then you can work on sorting things out an unfucking things for the future.

[Brisketexan 104560]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

A cynical observer might notice similar traits in the relationship between the United States and Israel.

Shame we don't have any of those around here.

[David Dennison 18652]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Quit with the fuckery.  Both of you.  The first step is to stop further fuckery.  Then you can work on sorting things out an unfucking things for the future.

Given the power dynamics involved, it is incumbent on Israel to stop its fuckery first. 

[chainsaw 9837]

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Every Palestinian terrorist who blew up a bus, participated in the October 7th attacks, etc., had plenty of "self determination." 

How many times are you going to conflate the terrorists (at most 1,000 of whom participated in the attack) and the 2.2 million people who have been the subject of this discussion. At this point I can't help but wonder if you're doing that deliberately.

I don't think the idea that Syria or Iran's thumbs are comparable to those of the US and the EU merits any serious response, either.

[Brisketexan 104560]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Given the power dynamics involved, it is incumbent on Israel to stop its fuckery first. 

Did the Palestinians EVER have an obligation to stop their fuckery?  If not, why?  If so, when did that obligation cease and transfer to Israel?  Because I seem to recall more than one war waged by the Palestinians and their allies seeking to exterminate Israel completely.

And to carry that through, when the Palestinian cause is continuing to shout loudly that Israel should be eliminated ("Back to 48!"), what is the incentive for Israel to stop its fuckery?  This is the problem, dude.  One side proclaims genocide as its mission, and with regular frequency, follows through with murder of civilians.  The other side does a damned good job of pursing genocide in practice, without claiming it as a goal.

How the fuck can you convince either side "you first?"  You can't.  The ONLY possible path is a simultaneous laying down of weapons, so to speak.

[chainsaw 9837]

16 minutes ago, Nivek said:

 

Here is an example.

A feel-good story, but it's not a long-term solution.

[statsman 5421]

20 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I'm glad you see the parallel though. Simple question: was the massacre of Native American people and imperial elimination of Native American sovereignty just or disgusting? We all know it was disgusting, but because it happened a long time ago oh well I guess. And the parallels don't stop there. 

Nobody on this forum gets emotional about Native American raids that massacred white invaders' whole families. In fact we understand why they did it and recognize that on the whole the white Europeans and Americans were the ones who bore more responsibility for the overall conflict. Do we support the method? Not really. But that shit happens when you're engaged in the destruction of their families. This isn't even controversial at this point. It didn't work out (like it won't work for Hamas) but it was understandable.

But because it's happening contemporaneously lots of emotions are blinding people right now. We're all basically watching it happen again and the sides people are taking are interesting. 

Thinking about your points doesn’t make me feel good, so I will ignore them. 
 
(Just kidding. Dammit, why do you make me think of this?)

[Brisketexan 104560]

2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

How many times are you going to conflate the terrorists (at most 1,000 of whom participated in the attack) and the 2.2 million people who have been the subject of this discussion. At this point I can't help but wonder if you're doing that deliberately.

I don't think the idea that Syria or Iran's thumbs are comparable to those of the US and the EU merits any serious response, either.

The dead Israelis don't appreciate your distinction.  And the remaining living ones who have lived with an open question of "is today they day they kill me?" don't appreciate it either.

You discount that BOTH populations live in a state of terror.  Which is why nothing will change.  The terror and fear of Israelis has zero weight to you.  The ONLY path is to acknowledge that both things exist: terror and despair by the Palestinians, and terror and fear by the Israelis.

[David Dennison 18652]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Did the Palestinians EVER have an obligation to stop their fuckery?  If not, why?  If so, when did that obligation cease and transfer to Israel?  Because I seem to recall more than one war waged by the Palestinians and their allies seeking to exterminate Israel completely.

And to carry that through, when the Palestinian cause is continuing to shout loudly that Israel should be eliminated ("Back to 48!"), what is the incentive for Israel to stop its fuckery?  This is the problem, dude.  One side proclaims genocide as its mission, and with regular frequency, follows through with murder of civilians.  The other side does a damned good job of pursing genocide in practice, without claiming it as a goal.

How the fuck can you convince either side "you first?"  You can't.  The ONLY possible path is a simultaneous laying down of weapons, so to speak.

Israel's fuckery is oppression. That has to stop first.

[chainsaw 9837]

Just now, longhornmatt said:

I see that argument in theory, but in reality it’s the exact opposite.  Territorial boundaries and the rules based international order are still basically ultimately decided by wars, just like when the USA and Native Americans were fighting, or the Mongols and the Caliphate, or the Romans and the Carthaginians, and everyone else in history.  It’s kind of incumbent on the less powerful side not to fight a war they can’t win, unless they’re ok with being martyrs.

Enough of them (not all of them) are okay with being martyrs. That's why I've said Israel is the one in the drivers seat here, if they truly want peace. Turning up the aggression is only going to give would-be martyrs even less to live for (and more to die for).

[Brisketexan 104560]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Israel's fuckery is oppression. That has to stop first.

And Palestine's fuckery is straight-up murder and terrorizing of every Israeli and jew.

We can do this all day.  It will be about as productive as the last 75 years have been.